We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close


Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

A PLACE TO START Anthony Kennedy * Enka v Chubb Introduction In Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb , 1 the “ultimate question” 2 for the court was whether to issue an anti-suit injunction to stop proceedings in Russia. In order to answer that question, however, it was necessary to determine and set out the proper approach which a court must take when faced with what might be termed, in the present context, the “Governing Law Question”, viz: what national law governs the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement when the law applicable to the contract containing it differs from the law of the seat of the arbitration? In Enka , the contract was governed by Russian law; 3 London was the chosen seat. The Supreme Court 4 sharply divided on the answer to be given, likely reflecting the difficulty of the Governing Law Question. This note cannot, and does not, consider all of the points made by the Justices. Instead, it summarises the (majority of the) Supreme Court’s approach and answer to the Governing Law Question. It then provides some short analysis of the reasons which underpin that answer. That the Supreme Court has given a clear answer is to be welcomed but, reflecting the sharpness of the divide between majority and minority, the answer given will not commend itself to all. Clearing the ground Where an English court is asked to determine the law which governs a contract, it must normally apply the rules of the Rome I Regulation. 5 Article 1(2)(e) thereof excludes * Lecturer in Commercial Dispute Resolution at BPP Law School; Barrister. The author is grateful to Professor A Briggs for his assistance. 1. [2020] UKSC 38; [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 449 (hereafter, “ Enka ”). A summary of the facts may be found here: [2020] LMCLQ 393 . 2. Enka , [187]. 3. This was agreed between the parties but the route by which this (common) conclusion ought be reached was in dispute. 4. The judgment of the majority was given by Lords Hamblen and Leggatt (with whom Lord Kerr agreed); the judgment of the minority by Lords Burrows and Sales, though Lord Sales also gave his own separate and very helpful judgment. 5. Regulation 593/2008. 42

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.

Enter your email address to log in as a user on your corporate account.
Remember me on this computer

Not yet an i-law subscriber?


Request a trial Find out more